This was originally intended to be a comment on a comment on a recent blog entry, but I was rambling and going WAY off topic, so here it is on its own.

(NOTE: The contents of this blog are the author's personal opinion. The author is not a professional writer, nor do they pretend to be. Likewise, the author does not hold degrees in English, writing, or any related field. As such, all opinions contained below should be seen as just that, and can be ignored should the reader wish to.)

Detail in a story is good. Detail helps to give the world depth and verisimilitude, and can mean the difference between a clear and concise vision of what a story is intended to be, and a garbled mess that barely gets the author's point across.

Having said that, detail is also one of the number one banes of an author's existence, because of everything that can get in the way of a story, details are the worst.

From what I've seen, it's pretty much a given that authors are going to write in one of two ways, either: A) They will give the bare minimum detail to set a scene and location, or B) they will go into far more detail than anyone could ever need, explaining things in a depth far deeper than necessary to explain a character's surroundings or situation.

Ideally, a good author should be able to strike a balance between the two: enough detail to make the world vivid and real, with flaws and features that make it more than just a stage or prop and a living, breathing character of its own, while still avoiding the pitfall of describing every last bit of the setting and events -- removing all the mystery, wonder, and imagination from the reader's mind because there is nothing TO imagine, it's all been described. A good author knows that that very imagination and mystery are part of what keeps a reader interested, and works with that to make the world tailor itself to every person who experiences it.

Me? I prefer to err on the side of caution -- caution in my case stating that too little detail is usually preferable to too much.

An example: I am setting a scene inside a space station. No, make that THE space station. Now, I COULD go into a great deal of research into exactly how the space station works, what every part does, what each button on every control panel does, even what food rations they have available. I could make the world incredibly detailed around my characters before getting into their actions.

But what effect does this have on them?

There are three things, in my mind, that stand out as the most important parts of a story, and they are ALL character driven. They can be summarized fairly simply: Think, Feel, and Do. These three features are an author's best tools for telling a story, and represent loosely a character's intellect ("I know that Stephen killed Dr. Lazenby,") Empathy ("This makes me feel angry,") and physical response ("I'm gonna punch Stephen in the face!")

While the physical world around them -- or even knowledge of the working of things around them -- can in some cases make a difference to these actions, in most cases the world around a character is one thing and one thing only: window dressing.

It doesn't matter if the curtains in the background are red, blue, lace, or string cheese: what matters is the emotions going through the girl's head as she hides behind them and listens to the conversation going on in the room.

Whether the camera taking the picture is Nikon, Canon, or Fujifilm makes no difference to me as a reader: what I care about is the expression on the model's face as she fights down her nerves and poses for her first glamor shots.

Who is bothered by the feasibility of a compact handheld visible-light laser pistol: I want to know the hero is going to make his shot count, and escape with the smart, sassy princess.

An author doesn't need to know how a movie studio works to write a good story about an actress struggling with substance abuse problems on the set of her latest film, nor do they need to understand quantum mechanics and supergravity to write a well paced and intriguing science fiction romance. All they need to know how to do is make their characters believable. If they can do that? Everything else just fades into the background, where it belongs.

Let's apply all this in the context of my initial example, the space station. My protagonist is not a scientist, or an astronaut, or anything of the sort. She is just a normal girl, in the wrong place at the wrong time, who has through a series of unlikely circumstances ended up on the space station.

What use would it serve her, or her interactions as a character, to know precisely how much O2 the station had, or how many hours until they went nightside, or how many miles precisely she was floating over the surface of the earth?

What use would this information serve a reader, either, if their focus is on the girl and her experiences aboard the station?

If all she is doing is looking out at the stars, none of this information is needed. If she is interacting with scientists on the station, then it is only important in as far as how it affects their interactions with her.

Girl:
Think -- "I should not be up here, and I will be in major trouble when I get down."
Feel -- "I feel excited, and more than a little nervous, and afraid of what will happen."
Do -- "I will just curl up in the corner over here and try to be invisible, hopefully nobody will bother me..."

Scientist:
Think -- "Our weight load on the trip out here was about 125 pounds higher than calculated."
Feel -- "Something might be wrong, and my intuition is telling me I need to look into what is happening."
Do -- "I'm going to explore the cargo bay of the ship to verify that nothing is amiss before returning to normal duty."

The main character is the Girl, who we'll call Monica for now since "The Girl" is just too unwieldy. In most writing authors will use either the first-person perspective, or limited third person, keeping much of what the reader experiences limited to the direct surroundings and experiences of the protagonist. In either situation, it would be fairly silly to go into detail at this point about the names of the various pieces of equipment around her, or the exact terminology involved with her movement or what she looks at and interacts with. It would actually detract from the story, since none of this information is likely to be easily accessible, or even important, to the character.

If all Monica sees when she looks at the computer terminal is a bunch of blinky lights, then all that should be described is a bunch of blinky lights. If she notes there is a space suit in the corner, then that is detail enough, since she is unlikely to be bothered by the models of hoses, or the specifics of functions.

We as readers have few concerns for details if they are noncritical to the character, and often a very cursory or basic knowledge even on the part of the author is enough to make a story work.

So, don't sweat the details. If you want to make a rich, detailed world, feel free to do so, but always keep in mind that readers are there for your characters, not your ship design prowess or house decorating skills. We want to know the three basics: Think, Feel, and Do.

The curtains in the space station? Nothing but window dressing.

Melanie E.